Scottish Court of Session Decisions

These were two actions between the same parties. The first was a petition by the Portobello Pier Company againt Clift, who was manager of their refreshment rooms. Clift had been dismissed by the Company, and the object of the petition was to obtain from him an assignation of the certificate and licence for the sale of liquors which he had obtained. The second action was a petition for interdict against the Company carrying on business in the refreshment rooms. The first case was decided in favour of Clift, with expenses; the second in favour of the Company, also with expenses. The Company having got their account audited, obtained decree in the agent's name, and Clift sought to obtain decree for his expenses, likewise in the name of the agent-disburser. The Company objected, on the ground that they were entitled to set off the one account against the other, and to pay the balance, a course they could not adopt if the decree was given against them in the name of the agent-disburser. It was argued for Clift that compensation of one account against the other did not take place unless in the same litigation, and that where the debt was extrinsic, as here, compensation did not take place at all.

Cases cited— Gordon v. Davidson, June 13, 1865, 3 Macph. 938; Stothart v. Johnston's Trustees, Dec. 3, 1822, 2 Mor. 549; Warburton v. Hamilton, May 30, 1826, 4 S. 639; Graham v. M'Arthur, Nov. 28, 1826, 5 Shaw 46.

The Court refused the application, on the ground that the two actions being about the same subject-matter, and between the same parties, might have been conjoined, and that if they had there could have been no doubt, on the authorities, that the second account compensated the first.